AARG! Anonymous wrote: >In fact, you are perfectly correct that Microsoft architectures would >make it easy at any time to implement DRL's or SNRL's. They could do >that tomorrow! They don't need TCPA. So why blame TCPA for this feature?
The relevance should be obvious. Without TCPA/Palladium, application developers can try to build a Document Revocation List, but it will be easily circumvented by anyone with a clue. With TCPA/Palladium, application developers could build a Document Revocation List that could not be easily circumvented. Whether or not you think any application developer would ever create such a feature, I hope you can see how TCPA/Palladium increases the risks here. It enables Document Revocation Lists that can't be bypassed. That's a new development not feasible in today's world. To respond to your remark about bias: No, bringing up Document Revocation Lists has nothing to do with bias. It is only right to seek to understand the risks in advance. I don't understand why you seem to insinuate that bringing up the topic of Document Revocation Lists is an indication of bias. I sincerely hope that I misunderstood you.
